Skip to main content

About your Search

20131202
20131210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
comments. well, i would answer the question this way. secretary kerry and president karzai reached an agreement, which we, the president, his national security council, signed off on. that agreement was the text that was presented which president karzai intel. they enthusiastically, strongly endorsed that text, that agreement. and strongly recommended to president karzai to sign it. every public official we've heard from in afghanistan has strongly supported the signing of that agreement. the issue of who has the authority to speak for the sovereign nation of afghanistan, i suppose the lawyers can figure that out. what we would be interested in, sort has secretary of defense, is whatever document is agreed to. as you know it has to go to their department for ratification not unlike our senate and the treaty. and if it's ratified by their parliament, then whether it's the minister of defense or the president, someone who has the authority to sign on behalf of afghanistan, i suspect, i suspect that would fulfill the kind of commitment we need but i don't want to veer too much further
kerry and president karzai reached an agreement, which we, the president and the national security council signed off on. that agreement was the texts presented to loya jirga which president karzai empanelled. the loya jirga strongly endorsed that texts, that agreement and strongly recommended to president karzai to sign it. every public official we have heard from in afghanistan has strongly supported the signing of that agreement. now, the issue of who has the authority to speak for this offering nation of afghanistan, i suppose the lawyers can figure that out. but we would be interested in certainly a secretary of defense is whatever document is agreed to and as you know it has to be the parliament for ratification and if it's ratified at the parliament than whether it's the then the minister of defense or the president, someone who has the authority to sign on behalf of afghanistan. i suspect that would fulfill the kind of commitment we need, but i don't want to fear too much further into the legal territory until i have a further understanding of what exact he the authority so
this happen again. what would your advice be with to the administration on dealing with the karzai government as we go forward to 2014? >> patience. [laughter] you know, it's, this is maddening. but, you know, i think the important thing is to focus on what is in the u.s. strategic interest. i think a long-term strategic partnership that supports the afghan state and afghan institutions like the armed forces gaining self-sufficiency, independence, capacity is in our interests for all the reasons we lived through on 9/11. i think that is, can be done at a reasonable level of investment. and, you know, i do believe and i share the view that if we're going to have americans on the ground in afghanistan, we have to have a security agreement that insures that they fall under u.s. legal protections, not subject to afghan law. that has always been a red line, and i think it's an appropriate red line. but i also think we heard from the afghan people via the low ya jirga that most of afghan's leadership including i would say just about if not everybody presidential candidate that is running for electi
soldiers to operate there and how we would operate them and these are good international agreements. karzai is playing a game and i think he is figuring we want to the deal more than he wants the deal or he thinks we have to have a deal and i hope we don't play this game of chicken and turn away and walk away and i don't think that is where the mindset is. this deal is really important and by the way it sends a message both to our adversaries and their allies in the region that we are not just going to pac up and go home. that is not helpful given what has happened in the middle east. >> mr. chairman on behalf of sais and our audience here today want to thank you for taking the time with us, for showing us your depth and command of these vital national security issues and your bipartisan leadership on the committee and in congress. >> thank you very much. thanks for having me. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> he if you could all stay seated we are going to begin the next session right away with representative christopher van hollen. christopher van hollen was elected to congress in 2
-- soldiers to operate there. these are good international agreements. karzai is playing a game. he is bickering that we want to deal more than he wants the deal , or he thinks we have to have a deal. i think we do not play this game of chicken and walk away. this deal is really important. by the way, it also sends a message to our adversaries and allies in the region. that is not helpful to us given what has happened in the middle east. -- >> on behalf of the audience year, thank you for being here to show us your depth and commands of these issues, and your bipartisan leadership in the congress and committee. thank you. >> thanks for having me. [applause] >> great to see you. thank you very much. >> if you could all stay seated, we are going to begin the next session right away with representative christopher van hollen. christopher van hollen was elected to the congress in 2002 representing maryland's eight district and quickly rose to become one of the youngest members of the democratic leadership, serving as chairman of the democratic congressional campaign committee and as as
to the floor to speak about the bilateral strategic agreement and the fact that president karzai has refused to sign the proposal offered by the administration. since we have been in afghanistan, 2,285 americans have given their lives for our country and 19,514 have been wounded. the time has come for congress to understand history. from the days of alexander the great to the british to the russians, no one has ever changed afghanistan. the american people are tired of the cost of war, both life and money. as i said yesterday, it is my hope that in early 2014, the leadership of the house will permit a debate and a vote on the agreement that will obligate our country to afghanistan for at least 10 more years. i realize that the vote will not change the agreement, because the president does have the authority, but this will give us a chance to represent the people of america who the majority are opposed to this agreement. it is unacceptable that we will continue to spend billions of dollars at a time, according to special inspector general, the waste, fraud and abuse is worse in afghanistan to
international agreements. karzai is playing a game. he is bickering that we want to deal more than he wants the deal, or he thinks we have to have a deal. i think we do not play this game of chicken and walk away. this deal is really important. by the way, it also sends a message to our adversaries and allies in the region. that is not helpful to us given what has happened in the middle east. >> on behalf of the audience year, thank you for being here to show us your depth and commands of these issues, and your bipartisan leadership in the congress and committee. thank you. >> thanks for having me. [applause] >> great to see you. thank you very much. >> if you could all stay seated, we are going to begin the next session right away with representative christopher van hollen. christopher van hollen was elected to the congress in 2002 representing maryland's eight district and quickly rose to become one of the youngest members of the democratic leadership, serving as chairman of the democratic congressional campaign committee and as assistant to the speaker of the house. in 2010, he was elect
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7